4.6 Article

Bacterial biofilm in chronic lesions of hidradenitis suppurativa

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 176, 期 4, 页码 993-1000

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.15007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation
  2. Lundbeck Foundation [R105-2011-9791] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Chronic nonhealing or recurrent inflammatory lesions, reminiscent of infection but recalcitrant to antibiotic therapy, generally characterize biofilm-driven diseases. Chronic lesions of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) exhibit several characteristics, which are compatible with well-known biofilm infections. Objectives To determine and quantify the potential presence of bacterial aggregates in chronic HS lesions. Methods In 42 consecutive patients with HS suffering from chronic lesions, biopsies were obtained from lesional as well as from perilesional skin. Samples were investigated using peptide nucleic acid-fluorescence in situ hybridization in combination with confocal laser scanning microscopy. In addition, corresponding histopathological analysis on haematoxylin and eosin slides was performed. Results Biofilms were seen in 67% of the samples of chronic lesions and in 75% of the perilesional samples. The mean diameter of aggregates in lesional skin was significantly greater than in perilesional skin (P = 0.01). Large biofilms (aggregates > 50 mu m in diameter) were found in 42% of lesional samples and in only 5% of the perilesional samples (P = 0.009). The majority of the large biofilms were situated in sinus tracts (63%) or in the infundibulum (37%). The majority of the sinus tract samples (73%) contained active bacterial cells, which were associated with inflammation. Conclusions This study suggests that biofilm formation is associated with inflammation of chronic HS lesions. The aggregates most likely occur as a secondary event, possibly due to predisposing local anatomical changes such as sinus tracts (tunnels), keratinous detritus and dilated hair follicles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据